JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge Appellant Babu Ram, one of the plaintiffs, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.40 of 2006, titled as State of H.P. v. Babu Ram and others, whereby judgment and decree dated 14.3.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.71/1 of 2003, titled as Babu Ram and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh, stands reversed. 2. On the premise that their possession, adverse in nature, over the suit land has fructified into title, plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Trial Court, based on the pleadings of parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have become owners in possession by way of adverse possession? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Relief. 4. Appreciating the material on record, trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms: “In view of my findings on issues No.1 & 2 above, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant with costs. It is accordingly declared that the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession and the entry of ownership in the revenue record in the name of defendant is wrong, illegal and void and is liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant is further restrained permanently from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land either itself or through its servants & agents. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 5. In an appeal filed by the State, findings of fact, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court stands reversed. The defendant is further restrained permanently from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land either itself or through its servants & agents. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 5. In an appeal filed by the State, findings of fact, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court stands reversed. Plaintiffs’ suit stands dismissed. 6. Present appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the ld. lower appellate court was justified in declining the relief of adverse possession to the plaintiff despite all the ingredients constituting adverse possession stood fully pleaded and proved on record? 2. Whether the long standing revenue entries i.e. “Bila Lagan Wa Wajah Kabja Najaiz” substantiated and supported by cogent evidence can be ignored and termed as barely paper entries especially in view of the qualitative evidence led in the instant case? 3. Whether despite the admission on the part of the revenue official regarding adverse possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, such plaintiff could not non-suited? 4. From the submissions of parties, as also perusal of the record, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration. 5. Noticeably, parties have been litigating since the year 2003 and all litigations must come to an end at some stage, moreso when no case for interference is made out. 6. Plaintiffs undisputedly are encroachers. In the year 1958, Roda and Bhangi, encroached upon the suit land, owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Halqua Patwari, in the year 1960, initiated proceedings against the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. A perusal of the plaint and the evidence on record, in no manner, establishes the plaintiffs’ possession adverse to that of the State. Plaintiffs could not satisfactorily prove the date of assertion of their possession by extenuating hostile animus. Particulars of overt acts are conspicuously absent in the plaint and the evidence so produced on record. In the revenue record, land in question is reflected as ‘Khadiyatar’ (not having put to cultivation). Simply because plaintiffs have been found to be in possession of the land, that fact in itself would not exhibit plaintiffs’ intent of possessing the land in a manner hostile to that of the true owner. In the revenue record, land in question is reflected as ‘Khadiyatar’ (not having put to cultivation). Simply because plaintiffs have been found to be in possession of the land, that fact in itself would not exhibit plaintiffs’ intent of possessing the land in a manner hostile to that of the true owner. There are no pleadings or proof to substantiate the factual plea sought to be urged while addressing substantial questions of law No.1 and 3. 7. Also, there is nothing on record to show that plaintiffs had declared their animus dessidendi, exhibiting their intention hostile to the knowledge of the State. In any event, essential ingredients so as to constitute a right by way of adverse possession, in terms of law laid down by the apex Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others versus Revamma and others, (2007) 6 SCC 59 ; and Mandal Revenue Officer versus Goundla Venkaiah and another, (2010) 2 SCC 461 have neither been pleaded nor proved on record. 8. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the first Appellate Court are illegal, perverse or erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.